Thursday, September 9, 2010

Mary's Nativity and the children's limbo

The Immaculate Birth of
Mary

As
pointed out in yesterday’s post on the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the
Church had universally accepted the immaculate birth of Mary – that she was
sanctified in the womb and born without sin – long before the dogma of the
Immaculate Conception was being thought about. Much as the feast of Christmas
came before the feast of the Annunciation and maintained greater prominence; so
too, the feast of the Nativity of Mary was prior and was more prominent in the
life of the Church, until the most recent times.

The
Church celebrates the feast of the Nativity of Mary because she was holy in her
birth – she was born free of original sin. St. Thomas appeals to this point
explicitly in a sed contra (of ST III, q.27, a.1) to defend the
doctrine of her sanctification in the womb. Precisely because Mary was freed
from sin while in the womb (or, as we now know, from the first moment of her
conception), we celebrate her birthday as a solemn feast.

It
is well known that most feast days of saints are held on the day of their
deaths. There are, of course, three exceptions to this: Christmas, the Nativity
of Mary, and the Nativity of John the Baptist. In the Church today, the feast
of the Nativity of John the Baptist is kept with even greater solemnity than
the feast of Mary’s Birth – John the Baptist’s Nativity is celebrated with a
Vigil and a Mass of the Day. Most likely, the relative subtlety of Mary’s feast
is due to the great devotion to her Immaculate Conception and the special
solemnity kept on that day. Mentioning the feast of the Nativity of John the
Baptist does, however, raise the question of whether any other than Christ and
Mary were born without original sin through being sanctified in the womb.

The nativities of Jeremiah
and John the Baptist

In
Summa Theologiae III, q.27, a.6, St.
Thomas considers whether Jeremiah and John the Baptist were sanctified in the
womb and cleansed of original sin before their birth. At first it might seem
like this is a grace reserved specifically to the Blessed Virgin Mary, but St.
Thomas affirms that, based on the witness of Sacred Scripture and the Tradition
of the Church, we ought to maintain that these prophets were likewise freed
from original sin before their birth.

The
Scripture passages cited are: Jeremiah 1:5, “Before you came forth out of the
womb, I sanctified you” (for Jeremiah) and Luke 1:15, “He shall be filled with
the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb” (for John the Baptist). St.
Augustine is cited as a patristic authority who occasionally interpreted these
verses as speaking of the pre-natal sanctification of Jeremiah and St. John.

It
is important to note, however, that Mary’s sanctification is different than
that of the two prophets insofar as they were not entirely freed of the
inclination toward sin nor were they preserved from all actual sin (though they
were probably preserved from ever committing a mortal sin). Obviously, neither
John nor Jeremiah was conceived without sin, thus the Virgin stands alone among
the saints.

The death of unborn babies
(and infants)

St.
Thomas makes an interesting statement regarding the sanctification of Jeremiah
and John the Baptist: “Nor are we to
believe that any others, not mentioned by Scripture, were sanctified in the
womb. For such privileges of grace, which are bestowed on some, outside the
common law, are ordered for the salvation of others, according to 1 Corinthians
12:7, ‘The manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man unto profit,’
which would not result from the sanctification of anyone unless it were made
known to the Church.” (ST III, q.27,
a.6)

St.
Thomas is very obviously opposed to including anyone else in the same category
as these three saints: Mary, Jeremiah, and John the Baptist. According to the
Angelic Doctor, these three alone were sanctified before their birth in a most
miraculous and extraordinary way – no one else has ever or will ever be
purified of original sin while still in the womb.

Disclaimer: What follows
includes some theological speculation on a rather controversial topic. I offer
it with a pastor’s heart (I am a priest) for the edification of readers and
with the hopes of providing an opportunity for careful and articulate
discussion as well personal reflection. I base my writing on the common
doctrine of the church.

We
know that “as for the souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, they go down immediately to hell to be
punished with different punishments” (Council of Lyons II). We are certain of
this: all those who die with original sin (even if they die without having ever
committed an actual sin) are not saved, but are excluded from heaven. The
difficulty of thinking that an infant (born or unborn) who died without baptism
would be punished in hell gave rise to speculation about limbo as a place in
hell which was free from all punishment (excepting that it is not heaven). We
need to be very clear about this point: Limbo, if it exists at all, is a part
of hell. It is entirely separate from purgatory or heaven; there is no punishment
there, excepting that the souls of the children will never see God face to face
– they will, however, be perfectly fulfilled on a natural level, knowing and
loving God as the first Cause and Creator of all things. Subjectively, limbo is
not a bad place to be. Objectively, it is a part of hell.

While
limbo is a point of speculation, this truth is a part of Catholic Dogma: If a
baby dies with original sin on its soul, that baby goes directly to hell
(possibly to limbo). The real question, then, is whether babies (born and
unborn) who have died without baptism have had any way of being purified of
original sin. We do know that at least some children were forgiven original sin
without the grace of baptism – the Holy Innocents. Making a comparison with
these martyrs, some today want to claim that the children killed through
abortion are “martyrs for the Gospel of life,” that they received a “baptism of
blood” and were thus cleansed from original sin and rewarded with the gift of
heaven. This is certainly a very speculative and somewhat extreme idea – we
might be left wondering, “What about the children who die from a miscarriage?”
Indeed, still born babies and those who die through a natural miscarriage
cannot be grouped under the concept of “martyrdom.”

Many
want to argue – and there are certainly some good reasons to make the argument –
that God, in a mysterious way, forgives the original sin of all or most
children who die before the age of reason without having received the sacrament
of baptism. The International Theological Commission has stated that there is
some reason to hope for their salvation – though they have in no way ruled out
the idea of limbo (cf. The Hope of
Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized). The idea is that God
might sanctify these children while still in the womb or just after their birth
and purify them from original sin.

Here
he must point out the central issue which some modern theologians are focusing
on in this new proposition: the gratuity of God’s grace and his special love
for children (which is solidly rooted in the Bible). St. Thomas and the common
doctrine of the Church Fathers, Doctors, and Magisterium (which has always
favored the idea of limbo or something close to it) emphasizes the necessity of
baptism and the reality of original sin (which are also rooted in Sacred
Scripture). Ultimately, the answer to this difficult question is beyond our
comprehension and something which will remain a mystery to us until the Last
Day. However, I would like to consider how the question of limbo relates to the
doctrine of Mary’s Immaculate Birth (and also the sanctification of Jeremiah
and John the Baptist).

Concluding remarks

If
we are to hold that non-baptized children are saved, we must be claiming that
they are sanctified (either in the womb or after birth but before reaching the
age of reason) in a miraculous way, which would seem comparable to that of
Jeremiah and John the Baptist. Certainly, no child with original sin can go to
heaven – but those who want to argue against limbo and in favor of the
salvation of non-baptized children must be arguing that God forgives original
sin in an extra-sacramental way. We need to recognize just how extraordinary
this would be.

These
children, sanctified without baptism, would be given graces which far exceed
those which we know God ordinarily gives to people. These sanctified children
would be chosen by God in a way which far exceeds the graces given to the saints,
patriarchs, and prophets. They would be more blessed than Moses, Abraham and
David; more blessed even than Sts. Joseph, Peter, Paul, and John the Beloved.

Now
we cannot know for certain what God’s design is for these poor children, but we
do know that the graces given to St. John the Baptist and Jeremiah are
extraordinary and extremely special (and that they were given specifically for
the edification of God’s people in crucial moments of salvation history).
Without a specific, public, divine revelation that non-baptized babies are
given a share in these exceedingly marvelous graces, it will be impossible for
the Church to state that such children will be saved.

On
the other hand, this does not entirely rule out hope – but it will be good for
us to realize just how extraordinary these hoped for graces would be.

I do not see what is so odious about the common teaching of the Church (through the Saints and Doctors) about the limbus puerorum, aside from "modern man"'s almost total disconnect from reality and true rational thought. What we know for sure has been discussed by the Councils, the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, etc. at length for hundreds of years and it all points towards either a partially mitigated hellfire for unbaptized infants (Augustinianism) or the state of perfect natural happiness (the Thomist/Scholastic school). Only fairly recently has this innovation of the universal salvation of the unbaptized gained any currency. It is a complete shot in the dark, certainly without any real basis in what came before.

God is all merciful, but He is also all just. It seems that those who promote the idea that God has some mysterious salvation for the unbaptized conflates the natural and supernatural orders, even if only unintentionally. If heaven is man's natural end, then God would be unjust in frustrating anyone from that "natural" end, however, since this is not man's natural end God is not frustrating anyone's nature by allowing them to rest in limbo. This is both merciful and just.

Also, it would also seem that to propose that God grants the graces that would seem to be so special in the BVM and St. John the Baptist to potentially millions and millions would make that grace considerably less special.

@Andrew (Sept 19, 1:29am),I am inclined to agree with you on all points.

It would indeed be a very great assumption to think that the special graces given to John the Baptist, Jeremiah, and the Blessed Mother are shared with millions...Jesus does have a very special love for children, though.

There are certainly many good reasons for maintaining the belief in limbo.

@David,I don't think you are seeing the radical difference between hoping that some of those who died before Christ may have been saved and hoping that unbaptized babies might be saved.

Moses had a true (though implicit) faith, it was this faith which saved him -- St. Paul makes it very clear that Abraham was saved by faith.This faith was a "baptism by desire".Hence, there is no comparison between the Old Testament fathers and the unbaptized babies.

Babies are baptized by the will of there parents, the desire of the parents/Church stands in for the actual faith of the child -- this is in the actual sacrament of baptism.There is no reason to suppose that the parents faith could supply for the sacrament of baptism itself!

Now I am not trying to say definitively one way or the other on the limbo question (though you can guess my own opinion) -- but I do think we at least need to recognize just how completely extraordinary a thing it would be for an unbaptized child to go to heaven...it would seem to be more comparable to an "immaculate conception" than to a "baptism by desire".

if Limbo, as a place of natural happiness and free from punishment, is true, how will it relate to the new reality after the general Resurrection?

For instance, will they be returned to their bodies, though probably not glorified, or remain as disembodied souls? If they are physical, and the righteous are able to see God face-to-face, will those in Limbo be able to see the righteous? Could this be one way in which they know God as First Cause and benevolent Creator - through the obvious blessedness of the saints?

Chatto, Limbo is (technically) part of hell, but there is no subjective punishment -- those in Limbo are in a state of natural happiness, subjectively this is a great state of joy and bliss. So, they will receive their bodies in the Resurrection but they will not be glorified -- this is because they will not have the beatific vision.They will know God as their First Cause and loving Creator, they will see God's work in creation, they will see each other (and those being punished in the lower regions of hell) ... but they will not see anything of heaven or of Christ or of the saints.

It is important to hold that they know nothing of heaven or Christ -- because they don't realize what they are missing (supernatural happiness), thus they are naturally happy and unaware of any loss.

They will suffer no pain, but neither will they enjoy supernatural beatitude; they will enjoy natural happiness of body and soul.

[all this is on the presumption that there is a Limbo, and I am pretty sure there is]

What is your take on the theological opinion that Saint Joseph was sanctified in the womb according to the manner of Saint John the Baptist? As I understand it, this has not received magisterial weight, but is nonetheless the opinion of such as Saint Bernardine and Gerson.

hilaron (David),Personally, I do not think that the opinion of a pre-natal sanctification of St. Joseph is anything more than wild speculation.Following St. Thomas, I do not think that we should posit anyone to be so sanctified unless it is contained either in Scripture (John the Baptist and Jeremiah) or in Tradition (the Blessed Virgin Mary).

However, I would at least say this about St. Joseph -- to me it certainly seems more likely that he was so sanctified than that the billions of miscarried babies were given this very special grace.

In other words: It would seem to me to be very bizarre if anyone held that these children went to heaven while also holding that St. Joseph was not sanctified in the womb (like John the Baptist) -- how could St. Joseph be deprived of a grace supposedly given to so many?

I agree that it seems very improbable that such an extraordinary grace would be given to vast numbers of people -- I think children's limbo is a reality and I think we can safely say that this is the most probable and safe opinion to hold in such matters.

The reason I'm asking is that since we are to give Saint Joseph proto-dulia, the first among the saints after Mary, would it not seem appropriate then that he was in some sense sanctified more eminently than other great saints (ie. John the Baptist and Jeremiah)? Of course, that something is "appropriate" in this sense does not mean that it is factually true. I think you mentioned it in your post. But does not God give graces according to state, and what an exalted state Saint Joseph had! He was to be able to take charge of the Holy Family, notwithstanding that he was the least holy of the three, he was to humble himself to the point that in obedience to God he would command God the Son as his Foster-Father. Such extraordinary tasks are in my mind totally impossible without the most extraordinary graces. How do we account for such graces without the pre-natal sanctification of Saint Joseph?

I'm not quite sure where I stand on the issue, so I'm merely asking questions at this point. I haven't studied it in-depth from a theological stand-point, merely let it be the object of pious reflection at certain times, mainly because of a video I watched on AirMaria.com with Dr. Mark Miravalle.

Appreciate everything you do here, father! I have learned very much and it is really comforting to know that you have place to go to when you need to bring up some discussion in a charitable and friendly tone. All too often people are so dismissive right off the bat and there seems to be a sort of enmity between the parties, especially on the Internet. No room for intellectual debate or honest inquiry. You provide a much needed oasis.

I guess I still would be hesitant to ascribe this grace to St. Joseph -- but I will also admit that, in recent years, there has been a great increase in our theological understanding of this great Saint. Thus, I am certainly open to the hypothesis.

[and, as I said before, since a vast majority of Catholics (and even many theologians) hold to the salvation of these infants, they ought also to maintain the sanctification of Joseph in the womb]